Pitt = Team A; UNC = Team B; TCU = Team C; Maryland = Team D?
As I see the various records, it seems clear to me that the Quad 2 and Quad 4 losses are what's keeping us so low, NET-wise.
I think I have found some reasoning for Rankings/Net
- Thread starter recruitsreadtheseboards
- Start date
As I see the various records, it seems clear to me that the Quad 2 and Quad 4 losses are what's keeping us so low, NET-wise.
Nope. Well yes to Pitt as Team A. UNC is team B.
Kentucky is Team C and Illinois is Team D
So those resumes and Pitt is ranked 48th. Carolina 45th. Kentucky is 40th and Illinois is 27th. There really seems to be little difference between Pitt and Illinois, yet are 21 spots apart.
Bad solution to a legitimate problem. Like Gonzaga doesn't have football and is one of the best teams in the country. I don't think Marquette, Creighton, St. Mary's, St Johns, Providence etc has football teams. Could be wrong on a few.
I figured the 4th team was a B10 team. What kills me is they are a 6 seed in Bracket Matrix while we are 10. 4 seed lines when you can make the argument we have the better resume. I mean if you want them to put us at a 10, fine but Illinois cant be higher than a 9. But a SIX!!!!!! That is insane. And its solely due to NET.
What is meaningless is that notion that a sports league, any sports league, should think that late season results are more important than early season results.
And you know why we know that they think it's meaningless? Because literally none of them count early season results more.
Except maybe college football. Which has just about the most fracked up post season of them all. Is that really who we should be emulating?
What's flawed is that you keep trying to use the NET to evaluate team's records. The NET IS NOT MEASURING TEAM'S RECORDS. The NCAA has other metrics that they use that do that. The NET is trying to figure out how good the teams are. And if you guys don't think that a 20 point win over a team versus a 4 point win over a team is an indicator of the relative strengths of the two teams then you simply must not ever pay attention to any sport, let alone college basketball.
It sounds like you are comparing this to pro leagues. In pro leagues teams get seeded with win / loss records. In college basketball there are 363 teams. What other major sport has that many teams trying to get in a tournament? The reason the results are important in pro leagues early in the season is because they strictly seed on win loss results and nothing else. The conference record in college basketball in power 6 should absolutely be very important. It sure used to be.
And that has been my argument the entire time. Wins matter far more than anything, like in any sport. Wins matter far more than efficiency. Teams should be seeded by who they beat first and foremost, which, according to Palm, Q1 and Q2 wins should carry the most weight in seeding. Followed by Road wins which according to Lunardi on his podcast just the other today, Road wins are far and away the most important thing in tournament seeding, more important than Q 1 and Q2. So if 2 bracketologists are saying this on 2 major networks, then by all means seed teams by using it. The issue is, they aren't doing what they are saying. They aren't seeding these teams accurately with the Q1, Q2, and road wins as the high standard like they are saying.
In college football from my understanding, late losses hurt much more than early losses. And, it should be that way.
We'll see on selection Sunday. Im going to do a deep dive this year and screen shot the net rankings right before the selection show and tournament takes place. We will get our answers on who gets seeded where based off quality wins / Road wins / finishing hot late in the season vs actual NET rankings.
Then how about this:
The school must be Division 1 in at least 10 sports to be division 1 in basketball.
@Joe the Panther Fan
You have an unusual way of describing things; I never know whether to take you seriously or take what you say sarcastically. But regardless, your so-called "indicator" of the relative strengths of two teams is all skewed if you just look at @recruitsreadtheseboards example of Illinois: yes, the Illini does have wins over #4 UCLA & #6 Texas, but lost twice to Penn State. Illinois also lost to UVA, and NW, both of whom lost to Pitt.
And speaking of Pitt, and its drop off from a 27 point lead to 19 at the final buzzer, only an idiot would think that Pitt wasn't the dominant team after watching the game, and knowing they cleared the bench with over 4 minutes left in the contest.
Here's a thought to ponder: what if some teams - regardless of how good they are - just don't match up that well with others? Might that explain how an Illinois team who clearly looks safe for the NCAAT could lose that badly to Ped State? Or, look that good beating Syracuse by close to 30?
It seems that not just we, but many of the so-called experts are not seeing the forest for the trees.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Last year on selection Sunday Rutgers' NET ranking was 80 (I've seen somewhere else say it was 79, whatever). Rutgers got into the tournament. There were, literally, 25 teams with better NET rankings than Rutgers when the field was picked. And yet Rutgers got in and none of those other 25 did.
And the reason for that, which I keep saying over and over but no one seems to believe me, is that the NET rankings are one, and only one, of the things that they look at. It isn't even the only "computer metric" that they look at, they use six different ones of those. Q1 and Q2 wins absolutely matter. Q3 and Q4 losses absolutely matter. Road game and, to a lesser extent, neutral game record matters. So do several other things.
The real issue here is that it's been so long since Pitt has been in the tournament that people have both forgotten the way things worked when we were regularly getting in, and more importantly, what things they are doing differently today than a decade ago. All everyone sees is NET, and they keep bitching about the NET, as if it is the be all and end all of the committee discussions. It is no such thing. It isn't even close to being that. More people are wasting more time worrying about something that is far down on the list of importance to the committee than is warranted.
By orders of magnitude.
I have been known to be sarcastic a time or two. But no more than that. Honest!
If you want to know why Illinois' NET ranking is better than ours and you want it boiled down to just one thing (which is obviously an oversimplification, and that's no sarcasm), according to the NET Illinois overall strength of schedule is 36 and ours is 90, and Illinois non-conference strength of schedule is 100 and ours is 183.
If you have two teams with similar records and one has played a much more difficult schedule than the other it is surely not hard to imagine the team with the more difficult schedule will be ranked higher.
